Albert Alexander Age v The State

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Prentice CJ, Wilson J, Greville–Smith J
• Judgment Date: 26 November 1979
• Citation: [1979] PNGLR 589
• Court: Supreme Court
• Year: 1979
• Judgement Number: SC169

Supreme Court: Prentice CJ, Wilson J, Greville–Smith J

Judgment Delivered: 26 November 1979

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE]

ALBERT ALEXANDER AGE

V

THE STATE

Waigani

Prentice CJ Wilson Greville Smith JJ

31 October 1979

26 November 1979

CRIMINAL LAW — Particular offences — False pretences — The false pretence — As to material existing facts — Inducement Intent to defraud — No need to show economic loss to representee — Criminal Code, s. 416 (1) Section 416 (1) of the Criminal Code provides:

(1) Any person who by any false pretence or wilfully false promise or partly by a false pretence and partly by a wilfully false promise and with intent to defraud obtains from any other person any chattel, money or valuable security or induces any other person to deliver to any person any chattel, money or valuable security is guilty of a crime and is liable to imprisonment with hard labour for five years. It is immaterial that the thing is obtained or its delivery is induced through the medium of a contract induced by the false pretence or the wilfully false promise or partly by a false pretence and partly by a wilfully false promise as the case may be.1.

The appellant, a bank employee who had reached the limit of his eligibility for loans as prescribed by his employer, and wishing to acquire a motor vehicle, sought the assistance of one Patu who on his behalf, completed a loan application to the bank in his (Patu's) name for the sum of K2054.96 for the "purpose" of assisting in the purchase of a new Datsun utility, indicating therein that part of the purchase monies would be provided by the trade-in for K1900 of a vehicle then owned by Patu. The loan monies were paid to Patu, who signed a cheque "to cash" which was paid into the appellants account. The appellant was charged with false pretences under s. 416 of the Criminal Code and so convicted.

On appeal against conviction on the grounds that there was no false representation or pretence by the appellant, that the bank had not been "induced" to advance monies by such representations as were made and that there was no intent to defraud,

Held

(1) Such representation as was made was not a representation as to an intention to do something in the future; it was a representation as to alleged existing facts, and was false, namely, that Patu desired to purchase a vehicle, that he was making an application on his own behalf for loan monies for that purpose, that he required those monies, and that part of the purchase price was to be in the form of a trade-in.

Greene v. The King (1949), 79 C.L.R. 353, distinguished.

(2) Such representations as were made with Patu's permission and on the face of it in his name, were made by the appellant.

(3) The bank was induced to deliver the money by way of personal loan to Patu by the loan application and loan inquiry documents, and the deliberate non-disclosure by the appellant of the fact that he was in reality the one to get the money, deceived the bank into granting the loan.

(4) The intent to defraud necessary to constitute the offence was present in the intention to induce the bank to do what it would not otherwise have done, and thereby act to its detriment.

(5) It is not essential in establishing the offence to show that economic loss to the representee (bank)...